Problems with Police Body Cameras

February 12, 2016
By
McGoughLaw P.C., L.L.O.

Share

Body cameras on police are still relatively new phenomena. While they provide
the opportunity for obtaining a more objective perspective on some citizen-police
interaction, a recent report suggests that as with virtually everything
related to the police, the devil is in the details.

The presence of body cameras can be compromised by a number of factors.
The police officers must be required to use them and there must by strict
controls on their use. When an officer may turn a camera off, when they
must be turned on, and most important, who controls the video that has
been shot.

Ideally, the video should be uploaded to a cloud server which the police
may access, but which they do not control. Some departments permit an
officer to view video prior to writing their report. They do not offer
this option to suspects, and it is very damaging to the integrity of the
process, as it would allow officers to invent stories that match the video.

There are very problematic privacy issues raised by video recording in
person's home, as would occur during a domestic violence call. However,
these issues are solvable, but a careful conversation must be held and
procedures must be put in place.

A significant danger is if police and their unions use individual privacy
concerns as a Trojan horse to hide their own misconduct by refusing to
release videos or by destroying them. In Nebraska this week, legislation
has been introduced that would make police body camera video not subject
to public record requests.

This is yet another means of limiting the use and value of these videos.
Law enforcement's highest duty is accountability to the citizenry
they are sworn to protect, and that can only be achieved by transparency.

The information on this website is for general information purposes only.
Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual
case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt
or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.